SkyDekker 1,130 #1101 December 2, 2014 Quote How can you say he did not do so? He didsn't say that. He was outlinging the process, since you appearred to have some trouble with it. Since you indicated you believed the Grand Jury had declared the officer not guilty. Hey Rush, isn't it very hard to believe that the Race Industry, the Race Baiters, Race Pimps and the Lamestream Liberal Media weren't powerful enough to sway two Grand Juries? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #1102 December 2, 2014 SkyDekker Quote How can you say he did not do so? He didsn't say that. He was outlinging the process, since you appearred to have some trouble with it. Since you indicated you believed the Grand Jury had declared the officer not guilty. Hey Rush, isn't it very hard to believe that the Race Industry, the Race Baiters, Race Pimps and the Lamestream Liberal Media weren't powerful enough to sway two Grand Juries? Agreed The same can be said for big money NOT being able to buy elections On a good note, the jury looked at the evidense and made a decision that that race industry, race baiters, race pimps, the lamestream media AND the left does not like. Good fair people are still in the majority despite the best efforts of the groupls listed above"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #1103 December 2, 2014 Quote"How can you say he did not do so?" He didsn't say that. He was outlinging the process, since you appearred to have some trouble with it. Since you indicated you believed the Grand Jury had declared the officer not guilty. Ok so first off you are wrong neither one of us were talking about guilt or innocence. Both of us were talking in terms of legal or illegal. We both know that a grand jury's job is to decide to indite a person who might have committed a crime. A crime is an unlawful act punishable by the state. The grand jury did not indite the officer therefore there was no evidence that showed he did anything unlawful therefore he was legal in what he did. Please show me in my replies to him where I stated guilt or innocence and not lawful or unlawful? Furthermore my reply of this QuoteHow can you say he did not do so? was in his reply of this QuoteWell, first the prosecutor would have needed to have a desire to indict him and present evidence accordingly. Which is what you stated was this QuoteHe didsn't say that. He was outlinging the process, since you appearred to have some trouble with it. Since you indicated you believed the Grand Jury had declared the officer not guilty. Has nothing to fucking do with this Quoteguilty. He was implying that the prosecutor did not have a desire to have him indited and presented the evidence accordingly. In which I stated QuoteHow can you say he did not do so? He presented EVERYTHING he knew about the case and every witness he could find. He even presented things not normally shown, and it was wildly commented in the media about it being unorthodox. I can tell you the prosecutor wanted to do everything in his power to get the monkey off his back, and lay out everything he could to 12 other people to get a fair shake on this thing. He did not care one way or the other he knew how important it was for people to look back and say he did not hide anything. It seems that you were the one that Quoteappearred to have some trouble with it. your misspellings not mine. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #1104 December 2, 2014 QuoteThe grand jury did not indite the officer therefore there was no evidence that showed he did anything unlawful therefore he was legal in what he did. No. it means there is no evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that what he did was illegal. That does not mean a finding of legal. Not being able to prove something illegal does not automatically mean it is legal. Quoteyour misspellings not mine. Thanks, there are a couple in your post as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #1105 December 2, 2014 When faced with being wrong, you chose not to address that set of fact, and move on to other fights nice. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #1106 December 2, 2014 Quoteit means there is no evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that what he did was illegal. Dude this IS our legal system"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #1107 December 2, 2014 rushmc Quote it means there is no evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that what he did was illegal. Dude this IS our legal system Says the man who thinks legal cases end in findings of innocense. Gravity, you are right, the grand jury decided that what the officer did was legal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #1108 December 2, 2014 AnvilbrotherQuoteWell, first the prosecutor would have needed to have a desire to indict him and present evidence accordingly. How can you say he did not do so? He presented EVERYTHING he knew about the case and every witness he could find. He even presented things not normally shown, and it was wildly commented in the media about it being unorthodox. I can tell you the prosecutor wanted to do everything in his power to get the monkey off his back, and lay out everything he could to 12 other people to get a fair shake on this thing. He did not care one way or the other he knew how important it was for people to look back and say he did not hide anything. Maybe you should read Justice Scalia's description of how a grand jury should be conducted BEFORE making a fool of yourself again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #1109 December 2, 2014 QuoteMaybe you should read Justice Scalia's description of how a grand jury should be conducted BEFORE making a fool of yourself again. So your implying that in front of 300+ million Americans following the story, massive media coverage, and under local, state, federal close watch by the likes of those such as Attorney General Eric Holder the prosecutor purposely an intently pulled a shady magic trick and got the officer off? I'm gonna go with the more likely story that the prosecutor wanted to lay out all the information he could in order to get the jury to the best decision they could. This guy did not stand up there and "fuck over the black people" right in front of their face to get the officer off while they damn near literally burned the front of the courthouse he was standing in.... This guy knew the death threats the officer was getting, the amount of pressure put on him and his office from the public for an indictment, and the possibility of his life on the line. I seriously doubt this guy stood up and said you know what fuck you im gonna rig the system to get this cop off. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #1110 December 2, 2014 kallend***QuoteWell, first the prosecutor would have needed to have a desire to indict him and present evidence accordingly. How can you say he did not do so? He presented EVERYTHING he knew about the case and every witness he could find. He even presented things not normally shown, and it was wildly commented in the media about it being unorthodox. I can tell you the prosecutor wanted to do everything in his power to get the monkey off his back, and lay out everything he could to 12 other people to get a fair shake on this thing. He did not care one way or the other he knew how important it was for people to look back and say he did not hide anything. Maybe you should read Justice Scalia's description of how a grand jury should be conducted BEFORE making a fool of yourself again. Tell this guy http://www.thenation.com/blog/191593/inconvenient-political-truth-st-louis-prosecutor-democrat QuoteAn Inconvenient Political Truth: That St. Louis Prosecutor Is a Democrat what you are ignoring is the whole think in MO is political. All the bs has NOTHING to do with getting so called justice"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #1111 December 2, 2014 AnvilbrotherQuoteMaybe you should read Justice Scalia's description of how a grand jury should be conducted BEFORE making a fool of yourself again. So your implying that in front of 300+ million Americans following the story, massive media coverage, and under local, state, federal close watch by the likes of those such as Attorney General Eric Holder the prosecutor purposely an intently pulled a shady magic trick and got the officer off? I'm gonna go with the more likely story that the prosecutor wanted to lay out all the information he could in order to get the jury to the best decision they could. This guy did not stand up there and "fuck over the black people" right in front of their face to get the officer off while they damn near literally burned the front of the courthouse he was standing in.... This guy knew the death threats the officer was getting, the amount of pressure put on him and his office from the public for an indictment, and the possibility of his life on the line. I seriously doubt this guy stood up and said you know what fuck you im gonna rig the system to get this cop off. Let's try again, this time think about it in the context of your statements in this thread. Maybe you should read Justice Scalia's description of how a grand jury should be conducted BEFORE making a fool of yourself again. Twice in one day is pretty heroic.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #1112 December 2, 2014 QuoteMaybe you should read Justice Scalia's description of how a grand jury should be conducted BEFORE making a fool of yourself again. Publicly attack me by calling me a fool all you want. Quoteneither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented. I dont give a shit what Justice Scalia said. Its rare but not unheard of for a defendant to testify to a grand jury. Darren Wilson got an opportunity that was not constitutionally or statutorily required to be provided to him, but it wasn't illegal or unheard of. I will once again ask you to answer my question. QuoteSo your implying that in front of 300+ million Americans following the story, massive media coverage, and under local, state, federal close watch by the likes of those such as Attorney General Eric Holder the prosecutor purposely an intently pulled a shady magic trick and got the officer off? And I am going to state once again QuoteI'm gonna go with the more likely story that the prosecutor wanted to lay out all the information he could in order to get the jury to the best decision they could. This guy did not stand up there and "fuck over the black people" right in front of their face to get the officer off while they damn near literally burned the front of the courthouse he was standing in.... This guy knew the death threats the officer was getting, the amount of pressure put on him and his office from the public for an indictment, and the possibility of his life on the line. I seriously doubt this guy stood up and said you know what fuck you im gonna rig the system to get this cop off. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #1113 December 3, 2014 Iago ****** Quote it means there is no evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that what he did was illegal. Dude this IS our legal system Says the man who thinks legal cases end in findings of innocense. Gravity, you are right, the grand jury decided that what the officer did was legal. Incorrect. A Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial for the specific charges. No shit Sherlock.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #1114 December 3, 2014 SkyDekker ********* Quote it means there is no evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that what he did was illegal. Dude this IS our legal system Says the man who thinks legal cases end in findings of innocense. Gravity, you are right, the grand jury decided that what the officer did was legal. Incorrect. A Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial for the specific charges. No shit Sherlock.... therefore he is inocent"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #1115 December 3, 2014 Untrue and inaccurate. "No bill" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #1116 December 3, 2014 rushmc ************ Quote it means there is no evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that what he did was illegal. Dude this IS our legal system Says the man who thinks legal cases end in findings of innocense. Gravity, you are right, the grand jury decided that what the officer did was legal. Incorrect. A Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial for the specific charges. No shit Sherlock.... therefore he is inocent No, therefore there will be no charges/indictement. Therefor there will not be a trial to determine whether he is guilty or not guilty. I am not even being accused of anything, but as my wife and ex-wife will tell you, I am far from innocent. (I really don't understand why you have such a hard time understanding that court proceedings do not announce people as innocent. Pretty simple concept, but you really seem to struggle with it) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #1117 December 3, 2014 normissUntrue and inaccurate. "No bill" If not taken to trial he can not be found guilty period"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #1118 December 3, 2014 rushmc***Untrue and inaccurate. "No bill" If not taken to trial he can not be found guilty period Now you are getting it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #1119 December 3, 2014 SkyDekker******Untrue and inaccurate. "No bill" If not taken to trial he can not be found guilty period Now you are getting it. which in this country, under our justice system means inocence, UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #1120 December 3, 2014 rushmc*********Untrue and inaccurate. "No bill" If not taken to trial he can not be found guilty period Now you are getting it. which in this country, under our justice system means inocence, UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY We have a whole lot of "innocent" folks in jails, then, don't we?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #1121 December 3, 2014 kallend************Untrue and inaccurate. "No bill" If not taken to trial he can not be found guilty period Now you are getting it. which in this country, under our justice system means inocence, UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY We have a whole lot of "innocent" folks in jails, then, don't we? So you are saying they were not proven guilty?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #1122 December 3, 2014 Eye witnesses are SOOO reliable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #1123 December 3, 2014 rushmc*********Untrue and inaccurate. "No bill" If not taken to trial he can not be found guilty period Now you are getting it. which in this country, under our justice system means inocence, UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY Yes that is the catchphrase. But since courts determine guilty or not-guilty, the catchphrase is not completely accurate. Not that uncommon for catchphrases, since their guiding principle is catchiness, not thruthiness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #1124 December 3, 2014 rushmc***************Untrue and inaccurate. "No bill" If not taken to trial he can not be found guilty period Now you are getting it. which in this country, under our justice system means inocence, UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY We have a whole lot of "innocent" folks in jails, then, don't we? So you are saying they were not proven guilty? There are a lot of people in jail who haven't even been to trial. Some may never even go to trial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #1125 December 3, 2014 SkyDekker ************Untrue and inaccurate. "No bill" If not taken to trial he can not be found guilty period Now you are getting it. which in this country, under our justice system means inocence, UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY Yes that is the catchphrase. But since courts determine guilty or not-guilty, the catchphrase is not completely accurate. Not that uncommon for catchphrases, since their guiding principle is catchiness, not thruthiness. Your problem with this is the same most liberals have It is the seriousness of the charge that counts Not the evidence"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites